SCIENCE: Not a recipe, still effective!

When you hear the phrase “the scientific method,” you may picture a tidy flowchart taped to a lab bench: observation → hypothesis → experiment → conclusion → instant truth. If science actually worked like that, scientists would be out of a job by lunch.

In reality, science is not a recipe – it’s more like cooking while the stove is on fire and someone keeps yelling, “Are you sure that’s what you meant to test?” Science is a body of knowledge, and as anyone who has ever taken a science course, the expectation was to learn a bunch of stuff so exams and quizzes could be taken and passed.

What is less commonly known, but even more important, is that it’s a particular way of asking questions about the natural world, and figuring out ways to answer those questions reliably. Then, when answers to questions are found (think: evidence!), that information is added to the body of knowledge. Moreover, it’s also a mindset, as the renowned astronomer Carl Sagan points out:

            Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. 

What we know is obviously incredibly important. But we wouldn’t actually know what we know about the natural world – and universe – without the scientific enterprise.

It’s creative, sometimes frustrating, and powered almost entirely by caffeine.

Science often starts when something doesn’t behave the way we expect, or even when mundane observations raise questions in someone’s mind. Apples fall to the ground. Liquids expand when heated. The universe is made of billions of galaxies, each of which is made up of billions of stars (golly, that’s a lot!). These observations trigger questions, and science begins with a very sophisticated thought: “Huh… that’s weird.”

Scientists learned a long time ago that making progress relies on being able to ask the right questions (see previous blog entry). When scientists work to answer these questions, they collect empirical data – gathered very fussily (is fussily a word?) with lots and lots of controls and conditions, from experiments and careful observations. “Empirical” means the data comes from reality – not opinions, vibes, or someone’s comment on social media who “did their own research.”

This is also why science sticks to naturalistic explanations. If something can’t be observed, measured, or tested, science cannot do anything with it. Not because scientists are closed-minded, but because microscopes and telescopes, sadly, do not detect magic.

The Scientific Method (Spoiler: It’s not what you think it is!)

Despite what many textbooks (and probably most 7^th grade science teachers) may say, there is no single, official scientific method. To be clear, the neat and tidy step-by-step version you probably learned somewhere along the way isn’t wrong – it’s just really, really inadequate.

Real science is messy. Scientists revise hypotheses, redo experiments, argue with their data and each other, and occasionally realize that they misunderstood the question entirely. Progress often looks like two steps forward, one step back, and one step sideways for no clear reason.

Sometimes, scientists actually test hypotheses (pigment x causes grass to be green).

Sometimes they measure quantities (How far is it to the moon?). Sometimes they compare variables (fertilizer and bean yield), build models based on a multitude of variables (the dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere is dependent on its composition), or just carefully describe what’s happening (diversity of insects in a particular locale, perhaps compared with a different locale). Applied research tries to solve problems; descriptive and experimental science tries to understand them. All of it counts – even when the results are annoying.

TRUTH: scientists formulate conclusions based on evidence, and these conclusions do not rely one bit on whether scientists like what they learn or they hate it. They can only look at what they have learned and say, “So that’s how it is.”

And, much of what we know comes from careful observation. Remember Jane Goodall, the renowned primatologist who died recently? We know so much about the dynamics of chimpanzee societal structure because of her work. She truly conducted some of the best science in the second half of the 1900’s, and she never conducted one experiment!

Science, at its core, is a way of thinking. Carl Sagan again:

Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.

Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws: Words that have different meanings in science!

If science had a drinking game, “that’s just a theory” would be the phrase that sends everyone to the hospital. Theory has a different meaning in science than it does in common language.

In science, a hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for an observation. A fact is a confirmed observation. A law describes a pattern that consistently occurs. A theory is a broad, well-supported explanation that ties facts, laws, and tested hypotheses together.

Theories do not “become” laws. Ever. That’s like saying a chef eventually becomes a recipe. Or a mechanic turns into a wrench. Laws describe what happens; theories explain how and why it happens. Different jobs, both essential: laws describe, theories explain.

To say, “that’s just a theory” in science is nonsensical. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation for some aspect of the universe, not just someone’s wild-haired idea.

Evidence, peer review, and scientists don’t trust anyone

Science works because scientists assume mistakes are possible – including their own. That’s why research goes through peer review, where other experts examine the methods, data, and conclusions of the researchers who are working to publish their work.

Scientists are, by nature and training, very skeptical. Their singular mindset when exposed to any claim is, “Show me. Show me the evidence to support this claim.” (This perspective is occasionally voiced on the home front, by the way, and often irritates my cohabitant!)

Peer review helps catch errors, bias, and occasionally outright fraud. A classic example is the claim that vaccines cause autism. One deeply flawed study, published in 1998, suggested a link, but it involved poor design, ethical violations, and selective data. The paper was so bad that it was ultimately retracted by the journal (see: the next blog entry for more on this).

Science didn’t collapse. It corrected itself. It worked the way it is supposed to. Slowly, loudly, and with a lot of published papers.

Correlation is not the same as causation (say it with me!)

One of science’s most important lessons is that correlation does not equal causation. Just because two things happen together does not mean one causes the other.

This is why science uses controls, replication, and large sample sizes – to avoid embarrassing conclusions like “ice cream causes shark attacks.” It doesn’t. Summer does: ice cream sales and shark attacks are correlated, but only because people eat more ice cream AND go to the beach more often in the summer.

Without careful design, tight controls, and replication, it’s easy to see patterns that aren’t real – which is how bad science gets shared, liked, and reposted by thousands of people.

What Science Is – and Is Not

Science is:

• A logical way to answer questions

• Evidence-based

• Self-correcting

• Tentative but reliable

• As objective as humans with flawed brains can manage

Science is not:

• A source of absolute truth

• A moral or ethical rulebook

• A way to test supernatural claims

• A popularity contest (evidence wins, even if we don’t like it)

Scientific conclusions change when the evidence changes, not when people get uncomfortable!

The Big Picture

Science is not about being permanently right – it’s about getting closer and closer to a complete understanding. It values evidence over opinion, curiosity over certainty, and revision over stubbornness.

In a world drowning in misinformation, understanding how science works is essential. Reality doesn’t care what we believe, how confident we sound, or how many followers we have. It only responds to what we can test, measure, and demonstrate.

And honestly, that’s kind of refreshing.